Ethics rules adopted, but debate will continue

Chula Vista  This may come as a surprise to some, but before Tuesday night, Chula Vista did not have an official code of ethics for its elected officials and top salary earners.

Now, a list rules for office holders, assistant city managers, all department heads and the city manager is spelled out in the municipal code.

Work on Chula Vista’s Ethics Commission ordinance is far from finished, however, because elected officials are locked in a standoff on who will advise the board.

Three council members want to see an independent attorney work with the committee that evaluates complaints of misconduct against top city officials, a direction Mayor Cheryl Cox is against.

City Attorney Glen Googins says that change would require a charter amendment.

“There is no more conflict in your duty to make the policy then there is in my charter-directed duty to actually advise on those policies to the various boards and commissions that take up these issues,” he said.

Councilman Rudy Ramirez disagreed: “We can’t have a situation where the (elected) city attorney is going to be hiring the person who is going to be reviewing complaints. It’s a very direct and obvious conflict of interest.”

In San Diego, a 2004 charter amendment by citywide vote allowed the San Diego Ethics Commission to obtain its own independent legal counsel separate from the city attorney. During recent Chula Vista budget talks, the majority bloc allocated $600,000 specifically for upcoming elections.

With Cox opposed to most of the council-directed changes, council members overhauled the proposed board of ethics ordinance by removing its authority to initiate investigations, making it harder to keep a complainant’s name confidential and asking for more regulations for ethics commissioners. For years, Chula Vista council members have expressed concerns with people filing complaints only to fulfill political agendas.

Tuesday’s adjustments could make it less likely citizens will lodge accusations of ethical violations against elected officials or top executives.

Stacey Fulhorst, the executive director of the City of San Diego Ethics Commission, said a complainant’s name is never revealed in the city she oversees.

Revealing names of complainants “would have a chilling effect on people coming forward and we always want to encourage people to come forward with ethics concerns,” Fulhorst said. “Yes, of course the complainant might have an agenda, but it’s our job to sift through the facts regardless and see what’s there. So whether or not the complainant has an agenda is not really relevant to us.”

The authority of Chula Vista’s Ethics Commission to initiate complaints was removed Tuesday after a heated debate. Fulhorst said one instance where San Diego’s ethics board uses its authority to initiate complaints is when an issue is raised by the media, but no citizen has filed a formal complaint.

“People now expect that if the information is out there in public domain and within our jurisdiction, then we are taking a look,” she said.

Councilman Steve Castaneda asked the City Attorney’s Office to review ways the council could discourage citizens from filing complaints and then alerting the media.

Derrick Roach, a Republican Party official and Chula Vista resident who has filed many of the complaints the council takes issue with, called the suggestion “laughable.”

“Since when did the city of Chula Vista think they could take away people’s First Amendment rights to talk to whomever they want? It sounds like they think they’re more important than they are.”

He noted it would be inappropriate for an ethics commissioner or a witness in an investigation to speak with the media about an ongoing matter.

Castaneda said he is worried about abuse of the system and a waste of taxpayer’s dollars to investigate frivolous complaints or those filed by proxy.